Several shot during 3rd night of Kenosha riots

[atomheartbevo 89457]

7 hours ago, 52-80 said:

the 17 year old knew he was being threatened and chased at full speed by a 36 year old man with intent to inflict violence on him. 

He was being chased because he murdered somebody.   

[52-80 19098]

7 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

I suppose he has the right to defend himself just like a burglar has the right to defend himself if I wakeup to him in my bedroom.

 

I suggest you not run up on armed folks, whether they're on the street, or burgling your house.

[52-80 19098]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

He was being chased because he murdered somebody.   

I thought y'all said citizens werent allowed to play judge jury and execution

 

 

Edit: the first pursuit by the 36 y/o, who had been killed at that point? 

Follow the timeline

Edited August 28, 2020 by 52-80

[Doc Reeves 6434]

Just now, 52-80 said:

I suggest you not run up on armed folks, whether they're on the street, or burgling your house.

 

Oh. Well, I suggest no on try to rob me or point a gun at me.

 

See how that works?

[52-80 19098]

Just now, Doc Reeves said:

 

Oh. Well, I suggest no on try to rob me or point a gun at me.

Are we supposed to disagree with you on that??

['stache 21777]

So "don't start no shit" only applies to black people when they are shot by police? This kid inserted himself into the situation with an assault rifle looking to murder somebody, but now we're seeing all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify him murdering 2 people and seriously injuring a 3rd. This country is so fucking predictable. 

[JBJ 3649]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

This kid inserted himself into the situation with an assault rifle looking to murder somebody, but now we're seeing all sorts of mental gymnastics

Self-own

[sidis 9755]

unfortunately, i think this site has officially hit a new low with this unfortunate thread.

[Brew 3049]

45 minutes ago, dcar00 said:

i've seen people posit that there could be a self defense claim(because we don't know the facts and he was chased and attacked by the skateboarders in the video) but haven't seen anyone say he was absolutely in the right for shooting anyone. 

Then your reading comprehension sucks balls or you are just debating semantics at this point which is a stupid argument that there is no point in having? What does post 816 from sack seem to be saying to you? Don’t move the goal posts with your “absolutely in the right” statement above either.

I said not too many posts up that the self defense argument is going to end up holding some water based on the NYT’s recap of the events.

[52-80 19098]

2 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So "don't start no shit" only applies to black people when they are shot by police? This kid inserted himself into the situation with an assault rifle looking to murder somebody, but now we're seeing all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify him murdering 2 people and seriously injuring a 3rd. This country is so fucking predictable. 

The don't start shit no shit applies to both the white boys we've been discussing about for the last 10 pages.

 

 

Cool shout-out with the skin though

[elguapo 4583]

If it is proven that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before the chase started, does that nullify his self defense claim?

['stache 21777]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Self-own

So you think he walked into a "riot" with an assault rifle to meet new and interesting people? Add extra-curriculars for his college applications? I'm struggling with your point here. My best guess is you think he carried an assault rifle into a "riot" full of people he thinks are violent to help "keep the peace" without any intention of having to shoot someone because people would just comply with his commands. That makes sense i guess? 

[Doc Reeves 6434]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Are we supposed to disagree with you on that??

Youre the one handing out advice.

Damn, its a shame this kid hadnt gotten that pearl of wisdom.

[Foosters 17734]

5 minutes ago, elguapo said:

If it is proven that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before the chase started, does that nullify his self defense claim?

Without looking back at the WI code, that would be assault with a deadly weapon, so I'd think so.

[JBJ 3649]

4 minutes ago, 'stache said:

So you think he walked into a "riot" with an assault rifle to meet new and interesting people? Add extra-curriculars for his college applications? I'm struggling with your point here. My best guess is you think he carried an assault rifle into a "riot" full of people he thinks are violent to help "keep the peace" without any intention of having to shoot someone because people would just comply with his commands. That makes sense i guess? 

Yes, it does.  At least to people not with an Oklahoma education.

[workswithseed 2037]

9 minutes ago, elguapo said:

If it is proven that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before the chase started, does that nullify his self defense claim?

I haven't seen this, mind posting?

[closetohumping 17406]

22 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

 

Oh. Well, I suggest no on try to rob me or point a gun at me.

 

See how that works?

This is good advice.

['stache 21777]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Yes, it does.  At least to people not with an Oklahoma education.

Lol, okay. I bow to your superior Texas intellect that tells you he carried a loaded assault rifle into a "riot" for shitz and gigglze, even though your fact premise on my education is wrong, but what do facts mean anymore these days, right?

[JBJ 3649]

16 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Without looking back at the WI code, that would be assault with a deadly weapon, so I'd think so.

It's likely a high-tier assault regardless of what they particularly call it.  Texas has a separate crime specific to pointing firearms ("deadly conduct"), but most states do not.

Him fleeing probably resets any provocation, but I can imagine scenarios where it doesn't.

Edited August 28, 2020 by JBJ

[DanRydell 799]

32 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

I thought y'all said citizens werent allowed to play judge jury and execution

 

 

Edit: the first pursuit by the 36 y/o, who had been killed at that point? 

Follow the timeline

Has someone suggested they would have been ok with anyone on the scene killing Rittenhouse?

[Dahobbs 17451]

25 minutes ago, elguapo said:

If it is proven that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before the chase started, does that nullify his self defense claim?

I think that would count as provocation, so it could complicate his defense to some extent:

Quote

 

Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:

(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.

939.48(2)(b)(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.

 

The end result is that if he provoked the attack, he can only claim self-defense if he also "reasonably believe[d] he . . . exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant." In addition, I'm unsure if provocation changes the burden of proof, but that could be an additional hurdle. Keep in mind his retreating may help him counteract the provocation provision. 

Finally, he may also have a problem with another form of provocation that would nullify his ability to claim self-defense:

Quote

A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.

Again, it isn't clear from the statute and commentary how this affects burden of proof. I'd need to pull some case law to get clarity on that. 

Edited August 28, 2020 by Dahobbs

[52-80 19098]

20 minutes ago, Doc Reeves said:

Youre the one handing out advice.

Damn, its a shame this kid hadnt gotten that pearl of wisdom.

Don't burgle people

Don't point a gun at people (unless in self defense)

Don't bring weapons to an incindiary situation with little relation to you

Don't beckon "niggas" to shoot you

Don't chase down armed folk unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences

 

There.  Hopefully that clears it up.  The tuition is free of charge.

[closetohumping 17406]

33 minutes ago, elguapo said:

If it is proven that Rittenhouse pointed his gun at Rosenbaum before the chase started, does that nullify his self defense claim?

I'm not sure.  Hopefully our resident lawyers chime in.  If that happened, he'd have a weapons charge of some sort.  But if I pointed a gun at you, changed my mind and you started running after me?  

[closetohumping 17406]

8 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Don't burgle people

Don't point a gun at people (unless in self defense)

Don't bring weapons to an incindiary situation with little relation to you

Don't beckon "niggas" to shoot you

Don't chase down armed folk unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences

 

There.  Hopefully that clears it up.  The tuition is free of charge.

These are all good rules to go by.  I don't think it's wise to chase people with guns, use the N word, or steal. 

[Brisketexan 104666]

18 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's likely a high-tier assault regardless of what they particularly call it.  Texas has a separate crime specific to pointing firearms ("deadly conduct"), but most states do not.

Him fleeing probably resets any provocation, but I can imagine scenarios where it doesn't.

This sounds right.  Note that we know a LOT about this event (some things that happened before it, and the things that happened at the end of it), but I don't think we have good facts on what started the first "confrontation.'

If the first victim bum rushed Rittenhouse (that is, the victim started the fight), then it would likely be a self-defense shooting.  If, however, Rittenhouse picked the fight by menacing the victim by pointing a gun at him, then he provoked the fight.  You don't need to pull the trigger to start a fight -- pointing a gun at someone is DEFINITELY sufficient provocation of a fight (a dumb fight, because, I mean, the other dude has a gun, but still).  See below, which also seems correct.

8 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I think that would count as provocation, so it could complicate his defense to some extent:

The end result is that if he provoked the attack, he can only claim self-defense if he also "reasonably believe[d] he . . . exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant." In addition, I'm unsure if provocation changes the burden of proof, but that could be an additional hurdle. Keep in mind his retreating may help him counteract the provocation provision. 

Finally, he may also have a problem with another form of provocation that would nullify his ability to claim self-defense:

Again, it isn't clear from the statute and commentary how this affects burden of proof. I'd need to pull some case law to get clarity on that. 

The whole series of events begins with the first act of provocation.  Which we don't have facts on yet.  It may also be the case that the first shooting is criminal, but then he "reset" the provocation when he ran away.  That said, was he running away, or did he represent a continuing threat (that is, he remained armed, and was retreating to a different position to continue to be a threat)?  I don't know how the law would treat that -- I really don't.

Oh, and someone mentioned intent above....he traveled TO an event where he expected there to be an opportunity for him to use his gun.  Going TO the nuisance, so you could finally get to blow away some people you don't like.....that seems shitty to me.  I mean, let's play it out both directions racially:  there's a klan rally in public.  A black guy shows up with an AR, telling the klan types that if the step out of line, I'll fuck you up.  One or more bite on his goading, come at him and say "wadda ya gonna do about it, boy?"  And when they look scary enough, black guy gets his chance to blow them away "in self-defense."  Are we going to call that a valid self-defense case?  You weren't defending your home or your property -- you inserted yourself in a situation, with the intent (and you succeeded) of provoking a fight so you could finally shoot someone.

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Don't burgle people

Don't point a gun at people (unless in self defense)

Don't bring weapons to an incindiary situation with little relation to you

Don't beckon "niggas" to shoot you

Don't chase down armed folk unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences

 

There.  Hopefully that clears it up.  The tuition is free of charge.

All of this is accurate.  In my example above, black dude would have fucked up in showing up at an incendiary situation with an AR, and with pointing it at the klan.  And the klan types would have fucked up by picking a fight, and certainly if they chased after the black dude while he was still armed.  Different people might be legally wrong or right at different stages of that series of events....but all of them would have been "wrong" at one point or another.

[NorthLoop 14095]

A lot of what happens in this case will be determined by how much video there is. Based on what I've seen, a good lawyer could get this kid off on the murder charges. I still think he's a piece of shit that needs to go to jail for a very long time, but he'll get a lot of money raised for a defense team by the racists in this country who see him as a hero (shitstains like Johnny Sack for example). 

My guess is he gets the maximum for any non-murder charges against him, and his mother will likely end up spending more time in prison than he does. 

[Brew 3049]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This sounds right.  Note that we know a LOT about this event (some things that happened before it, and the things that happened at the end of it), but I don't think we have good facts on what started the first "confrontation.'

If the first victim bum rushed Rittenhouse (that is, the victim started the fight), then it would likely be a self-defense shooting.  If, however, Rittenhouse picked the fight by menacing the victim by pointing a gun at him, then he provoked the fight.  You don't need to pull the trigger to start a fight -- pointing a gun at someone is DEFINITELY sufficient provocation of a fight (a dumb fight, because, I mean, the other dude has a gun, but still).  See below, which also seems correct.

The whole series of events begins with the first act of provocation.  Which we don't have facts on yet.  It may also be the case that the first shooting is criminal, but then he "reset" the provocation when he ran away.  That said, was he running away, or did he represent a continuing threat (that is, he remained armed, and was retreating to a different position to continue to be a threat)?  I don't know how the law would treat that -- I really don't.

Oh, and someone mentioned intent above....he traveled TO an event where he expected there to be an opportunity for him to use his gun.  Going TO the nuisance, so you could finally get to blow away some people you don't like.....that seems shitty to me.  I mean, let's play it out both directions racially:  there's a klan rally in public.  A black guy shows up with an AR, telling the klan types that if the step out of line, I'll fuck you up.  One or more bite on his goading, come at him and say "wadda ya gonna do about it, boy?"  And when they look scary enough, black guy gets his chance to blow them away "in self-defense."  Are we going to call that a valid self-defense case?  You weren't defending your home or your property -- you inserted yourself in a situation, with the intent (and you succeeded) of provoking a fight so you could finally shoot someone.

All of this is accurate.  In my example above, black dude would have fucked up in showing up at an incendiary situation with an AR, and with pointing it at the klan.  And the klan types would have fucked up by picking a fight, and certainly if they chased after the black dude while he was still armed.  Different people might be legally wrong or right at different stages of that series of events....but all of them would have been "wrong" at one point or another.

The NYT piece on it implies/reads like there was a gun shot from a 3rd party that started the sequence. The first guy then sees the kid with the gun and rushes him, which we can make an assumption that shot/gun were put together in his head and he went after the kid. Then mob mentality somewhat kicks in and it goes downhill quickly which is the problem with having an armed citizen in these situations and especially a 17 year old armed citizen. 

Their piece complicates it. What isn’t complicated is that he should not have been there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.amp.html

Edited August 28, 2020 by Brew

[Incredulity 11561]

27 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Don't burgle people

Don't point a gun at people (unless in self defense)

Don't bring weapons to an incindiary situation with little relation to you

Don't beckon "niggas" to shoot you

Don't chase down armed folk unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences

 

There.  Hopefully that clears it up.  The tuition is free of charge.

 never get less than twelve hours sleep

 never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city

 and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. 

[Brisketexan 104666]

Just now, Incredulity said:

 never get less than twelve hours sleep

 never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city

 and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. 

Yeah, man...I always gotta quibble with number 3.  It should be "never spend more than one amazing weekend with or give your real name to a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body....but by all means, definitely spend that weekend with her." 

[dcar00 14036]

1 hour ago, Brew said:

Then your reading comprehension sucks balls or you are just debating semantics at this point which is a stupid argument that there is no point in having? What does post 816 from sack seem to be saying to you? Don’t move the goal posts with your “absolutely in the right” statement above either.

I said not too many posts up that the self defense argument is going to end up holding some water based on the NYT’s recap of the events.

OK so Sack said he was "in the right".  I'll remove the absolutely since it triggered you.

[Hate 20103]

The NYT piece on it implies/reads like there was a gun shot from a 3rd party that started the sequence. The first guy then sees the kid with the gun and rushes him, which we can make an assumption that shot/gun were put together in his head and he went after the kid. Then mob mentality somewhat kicks in and it goes downhill quickly which is the problem with having an armed citizen in these situations and especially a 17 year old armed citizen. 
Their piece complicates it. What isn’t complicated is that he should not have been there.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.amp.html

*to add that none of them should have been there.

[Hate 20103]

 never get less than twelve hours sleep
 never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city
 and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. 

Also, never get involved in a land war in Asia and never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

[Hate 20103]

Classic Surly double post.

[52-80 19098]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

 never get less than twelve hours sleep

 never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city

 and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. 

And don't get high on your own supply!

[Helobious 9482]

28 minutes ago, closetohumping said:

I'm not sure.  Hopefully our resident lawyers chime in.  If that happened, he'd have a weapons charge of some sort.  But if I pointed a gun at you, changed my mind and you started running after me?  

I guess I’d argue that I didn’t want to give you the chance to change your mind again. You already pointed your weapon at me once, I’m supposed to just trust you won’t whirl around and pull the trigger this time? 

[JBJ 3649]

57 minutes ago, Brew said:

The NYT piece on it implies/reads like there was a gun shot from a 3rd party that started the sequence. The first guy then sees the kid with the gun and rushes him, which we can make an assumption that shot/gun were put together in his head and he went after the kid. Then mob mentality somewhat kicks in and it goes downhill quickly which is the problem with having an armed citizen in these situations and especially a 17 year old armed citizen. 

Their piece complicates it. What isn’t complicated is that he should not have been there.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/08/27/us/kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-shooting-video.amp.html

There's a lot of gunshot-like sounds in every video.  I think they are fireworks.

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

2 hours ago, sidis said:

unfortunately, i think this site has officially hit a new low with this unfortunate thread.

[closetohumping 17406]

1 hour ago, Helobious said:

I guess I’d argue that I didn’t want to give you the chance to change your mind again. You already pointed your weapon at me once, I’m supposed to just trust you won’t whirl around and pull the trigger this time? 

Possibly.  I'd just run as fast as I can the other way and call the cops.  If you're running after me, I'd figure you want to cause me some harm, especially if I don't know you.

[atomheartbevo 89457]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

So you think he walked into a "riot" with an assault rifle to meet new and interesting people? Add extra-curriculars for his college applications? I'm struggling with your point here. My best guess is you think he carried an assault rifle into a "riot" full of people he thinks are violent to help "keep the peace" without any intention of having to shoot someone because people would just comply with his commands. That makes sense i guess? 

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Oh, and someone mentioned intent above....he traveled TO an event where he expected there to be an opportunity for him to use his gun.  Going TO the nuisance, so you could finally get to blow away some people you don't like.....that seems shitty to me.

1 hour ago, NorthLoop said:

A lot of what happens in this case will be determined by how much video there is.

The video interviews of him before the shooting are not going to do him any favors - he made it abundantly clear that he was there to play cop, and that he did not have any "non-lethal weapons", only lethal.  He fully felt he was there to keep the peace as it were.  He and his little medical kit would have been just fine, but he made it sound like he'd be pulling wounded people to safety while under fire.

 

 

[atomheartbevo 89457]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

My best guess is you think he carried an assault rifle into a "riot" full of people he thinks are violent to help "keep the peace" without any intention of having to shoot someone because people would just comply with his commands. That makes sense i guess? 

Are you saying you don't respect his authoritah?

 

Edited August 28, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[Guest]

2 hours ago, NorthLoop said:

A lot of what happens in this case will be determined by how much video there is. Based on what I've seen, a good lawyer could get this kid off on the murder charges. I still think he's a piece of shit that needs to go to jail for a very long time, but he'll get a lot of money raised for a defense team by the racists in this country who see him as a hero (shitstains like Johnny Sack for example). 

My guess is he gets the maximum for any non-murder charges against him, and his mother will likely end up spending more time in prison than he does. 

  Why is that card getting played on such an otherwise solid post?

[workswithseed 2037]

25 minutes ago, slorch said:

  Why is that card getting played on such an otherwise solid post?

They have no proof, but they have lots of beliefs. 

[MNLonghornFUKM 8799]

Are you saying you don't respect his authoritah?

 

Stop posting this freaky picture damn it

[Fondren & Main 6670]

17 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Stop posting this freaky picture damn it

You getting a disturbing boner?

[NorthLoop 14095]

1 hour ago, slorch said:

  Why is that card getting played on such an otherwise solid post?

Sorry for offending you and your fellow racists.

[DanRydell 799]

No matter what happens in the state prosecution, he's facing 10 years for possessing a gun as a minor and 10 years for possessing an unregistered machine gun and whoever gave him the gun is facing the same.

[MNLonghornFUKM 8799]

You getting a disturbing boner?

[Ignatius 4002]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

And don't get high on your own supply!

Don’t fake the funk on a nasty dunk....

[atomheartbevo 89457]

36 minutes ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Stop posting this freaky picture damn it

The next version I post will be the full-length version. 

And it will reveal that he's wearing the same American flag crocs or Vans or whatever that he was wearing in one of the other photos.

Edited August 28, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[MillerEP 30339]